To a certain extent I would agree to such policy...only to avoid like everyone posting everyone's name and endless discussion about who is right or wrong.
Yet what makes this policy as vague as smurfing: in one of the latest videos of Zeus on YT ex-#1 Xbox Pred openly talks about hacking and getting boosted by hackers -> I post that video link in forums -> it gets removed because of naming and shaming...that one did not make like any sense at all.
Pity.
I can tell from my experience in Quake that actually naming and shaming so to say or more precise thread in forums where names of suspects or proven hackers were available actually did work quite well.
a) you could easily just search for a name (back then even ip address because as admin in quake you could see all player IP addresses) -> confirm is the person on a list / is ip on the list (in case person changed nick name) -> make decisions to play with the person / accept him/her in team
b) threads in forums contained proof of accusation and proof of defense if any was present -> people cloud not only see the final verdict made by each team internally but also make up their own mind regarding the person if it was say 50/50 case
Yeah people did call out suspects in games especially if they did well but basically conversation was ended with the reference to the list -> not proved to be hacker -> end of story.
In this regards Valorant is doing better job - you can now download game replay, see POV of every player and decide to report or not sus plays / review what felt sus and see if that really was or just brain tricked you into thinking it was sus.
Respawn / Apex unfortunately is very closed system and nothing similar seems to be coming our way, Respawn = North Korea style management...unfortunately.